<p>"By 2000, the cost of a year at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton had reached the staggering sum of more than $35,000 for tuition and room and board - an amount that fewer than 10 percent of American families could afford. (In 2004, annual expenses had risen to well over $40,000 per year.) Yet at all three institutions, a majority of students were able to pay their expenses without scholarship assistance compelling testimony that, more than 30 years after the introduction of need-blind admissions, the Big Three continued to draw most of their students from the most affluent segments of American society."</p>
<p>Not sure how I feel about blaming colleges for this, when other (strong) factors are at work. First, income is often a function of geography - those in New England and the mid-Atlantic states earn more (and spend more on just day-to-day living) than people in the Midwest. H, Y, and P get their students from... New England and the Mid-Atlantic, where they are located. More importantly, IMO, is that many low-income families don't think they can afford HYP, so the talented student goes to a state school. While the savvy parents on this board know that generous financial aid packages will reduce the cost to something which is comprable (or lower than) state schools, most people don't understand that. It's also a function of geography in that lower-income students may have more incentive to stay close to home - plane tickets can be expensive. There's also no denying that SAT scores are most closely related to parental education and income. Finally, the big one that no one talks about directly: students of divorced parents make up less than 10% of the kids at Ivys - and with all of the factors relating to that (lower income, lower educational levels, younger parents, etc), it's hard to blame colleges for what is going on. Sure, some of the blame lies with them - many simply could not continue to operate in the red without enough full-freight students, who help pay for the others - but some of the "blame," if you will, lies with society as a whole.</p>
<p>"students of divorced parents make up less than 10% of the kids at Ivys"</p>
<p>That's surprising to hear.</p>
<p>Momsdream:
It also seems low to me; nonetheless,the rate of divorce has been shown to be lower in so-called Blue states which include New England and Mid-Atlantic states from which ivies primarily draw their students; divorce is also a factor in the financial situation of students and families; as well, there seems to be a correlation between students' academic performance and intact families.</p>
<p>this 'finding' is not surprising (as mini has pointed out in numerous other threads). The simple fact is that nearly every facet of the application and selection process is stacked against lower middle and lower income families. </p>
<p>The process is only exacerbated when highly selective colleges moved away searching for well-rounded students to building a well-rounded class -- which means singular individuals with a passion. Just like the athletic coaches, the academic deans want impact players too.</p>
<p>Well, it's very hard to have a passion when a kid has to get up at 4:30 am everyday to help his dad deliver newspapers so the family can eat. It's hard to become an academic impact player (doing research, for example), if your school offers more trades-type classes than they have honors (forget ap).</p>
<p>There are some points in the article I agree with, but some that I find truly egregious.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
The Big Three are conspicuously lacking in significant representation of the poor and the uneducated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Note that the author does not say children of the uneducated. Since when are highly selective universities expected to open their doors to "the uneducated?" Has he read the saga of the poor Native
American who was admitted to Wesleyan but had to drop out owing to poor preparation? Sheesh.</p>
<p>Interesting article. HYP are singled out because they are at the top of the educational heap but they are not alone. All of the schools have had tuition increases well beyond the rate of inflation for years. Government aid that was meant to pay for college now only partially pays for college, i.e. the GI Bill that many of our parents used to attend college.</p>
<p>The people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale feel the pain earlier than those higher up, like a canary in a coal mine. Further they view this economic stratification toward the top end of the socio-economic spectrum as proof that those institutions are elitist.</p>
<p>On a more positive note, the schools are sensing that cost is a problem, along with the perception that perhaps they are not doing enough for those in the lower socio-economic class. I am not sure how this will turn out but with an increased focus on the issue I suspect that there will be further positive action, i.e. the financial aid policies at HYP.</p>
<p>"Yet at all three institutions, a majority of students were able to pay their expenses without scholarship assistance compelling testimony that, more than 30 years after the introduction of need-blind admissions, the Big Three continued to draw most of their students from the most affluent segments of American society."</p>
<p>Of course. The more affluent are more sophisticated about the college admissions process, have better educations and therefore are much more likely to have scores, coursework, etc. qualifying them for admission; have more sophisticated and knowledgeable guidance counselors, and are more likely to be able and willing to go away from home for college.</p>
<p>Most college students in the US go to a college that's nearby. Only the more affluent can afford to visit colleges that are far away, and would feel comfortable going far from home since other people wouldn't be able to afford things like going home for emergencies or for long weekends or even having family assist them in moving to and from college.</p>
<p>Disadvantaged kids often come from schools that aren't able to prepare their students for the kind of coursework they'd encounter at top schools. HYP seem to be trying- they really do, but there's nothing they can do about the poor preparation that disadvantaged kids are receiving. It's not fair to admit a kid only to have them flunk out.</p>
<p>I think a reveiw of the base propsition that having a HYP education is demonstrably better --especially for lower income individuals ---than some other instituion (state univ or 'more local' LAC for example) needs reviewing.</p>
<p>Without pretending to quote articles and other individuals, I can remember articles in Forbes of the last couple of years. Fundamentally, I think their point was that attendign HYP was not the casue for high achievemnet, but that high achieving kids go to HYP ... and that they woudl do well wherever they went. HOWEVER, they probably enjoyed college, since they got to 'hang' with there'kind' </p>
<p>I just dont accept that HYP is the pinnacle of college success. Myself as an example went to a mid-level state University in Texas (Texas Tech) and am now making a great income, multi-million dollars in assets; I have lived and travelled around the world and felt confident with ambassdors, foreign high level ministers, common educated people . I enjoy music, literature and especially history. I have a good family --kids attending great schools, and I am able to help others here inhouston as well as having --I view -- peace and comfort at this stage of life.</p>
<p>I believe I would have not done as well at HYP --so the right school for me was where I went. For many others .. I think the same holds....</p>
<p>I will pause for comments</p>
<p>Why can't we just accept the much simpler truth that, at least in the case of HYP, they get whom they want? Amherst has pretty much proven (if Smith and Berkeley hadn't already) that they could do otherwise, and that the so-called "disadvantaged" kids could succeed just fine, thank you, if given the opportunity. </p>
<p>I don't think they are obligated to do otherwise. It's their money, and they can do with it as they please. It's not like poor kids die if they don't go to Yale. (Now the public unis, that's another story.)</p>
<p>mini.
i keep wantng to catch up and understand your view on the state universtiies vis a vis this issue </p>
<p>comments?</p>
<p>I think the state has an affirmative obligation 1) to ensure an educated workforce and citizenry, and 2) to provide opportunities to those who might not be able to access them otherwise, because (besides being a good thing) it is not in the state's interest to create a permanent underclass. That's much more serious business than who gets to join Skull 'n Bones.</p>
<p>Some of the problem lies in the fact that the public schools have counselors that are stretched to the max, and therefore, have learned what they need to know about the colleges that most kids attend - the public state unis and some of the private schools in the state. They place their assets and time into what will help the majority. At the FA meeting senior year, they focused on the state schools - no mention whatsoever of the tier 1, ivies, etc. The kids who applied there did so with no advice, and the counselors had little to no knowledge of FA, what needs to go into an application, etc. The kids from my school applied hoping they could get FA, and they didn't know to have the counselor establish a rapport with the adcoms, or anythign about "hooks". The few people that know what Amherst is, can't believe I can afford it (I can't) but I tell them that it is costing me less than the state school with room and board and they can't beleive you can get that much. Most think that 5000 a year is a lot. They don't realize that because the school costs so much more, that they can qualify for that much more. It is surprising, knowing what I know now, that we placed any kids in the tier one or 2 schools: MIT, Rice, Stanford and Amherst - 1 ivy, but recruited for sports. Just about everyone else went to the state schools, or contiguous states. (609 in the class) I am NOT saying this is bad (most of the kids went where they will be happy) - just one of the problems with getting kids who don't have the financial resources into the elite schools.</p>
<p>Economic diversity in a College Class is desireable.</p>
<p>MIT's admissions director has stated that they give a boost to those applicants whose parent's have not attended college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT has long prided itself on enrolling a high number of students who are the first in their family to go to college, but a few years ago, that number had dwindled to 11 percent, Jones said, perhaps because low-income students were too busy working at paying jobs to amass the kinds of awards and achievements that would get them into MIT. For this year's freshmen, it's back up to 19 percent.
[/quote]
Link to article dated 3/11/2004
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/03/11/whats_your_pleasure/%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/03/11/whats_your_pleasure/</a></p>
<p>If MIT can do it, these other schools can too. It's just a matter of what sort of class they want to enroll.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"students of divorced parents make up less than 10% of the kids at Ivys"<a href="from%20posts%20#2%20&%203">/quote</a>: That's easy to explain- its the way the financial aid system works. Colleges calculate financial aid based on income from both households in the case of divorced spouses; while the reality is that the vast majority of chidren of divorce are raised by their mothers; the mothers tend to have significantly lower incomes than the fathers - due both to disparity between male/female wages and opportunities in society, and to the childrearing responsibilities borne by the custodial parent; and divorced fathers rarely, in fact, contribute a significant amount toward college. In fact, only the highly affluent are likely to have divorce decrees specifying that the father will contribute anythng toward child support once the kid reaches the age of majority -- legally, in most states, the obligation for child support ends when the kid turns 18. So, in most cases, rather than having a contribution from dad for college -- mom's income goes down when the kids reach college age, because that is when dad's obligation to pay basic child support stops. </p>
<p>In short, the financial aid practices of elite colleges are stacked against divorced families. The 10% that are there probably come from very affuent families -- because the child of a single mom earning $40K a year whose dad makes $200K is unlikely to get any financial aid, and equally unlikely to get a significant contribution toward college from dad. Of course, remarriage of either or both spouses only complicates the picture further.</p>
<p>Students of divorced parents are at a disadvantage at private schools across the board, income non-withstanding. Many many private schools, primary through university, limit the percentage of admitted students from divorced families --knowing another percentage will become students from divorced families while they are students at that school.</p>
<p>Divorce is tough on children and tough on the schools that provide daily education to those children.</p>
<p>I live in a small one-industry working class town, where the majority of the professional class is recent imports. The only colleges/universities with name recognition tend to be the big football and basketball power-houses. The locals want their children to go to college but have no idea what it will cost or what the process entails. The only ECs are HS sports and after school jobs. I think the after school jobs are the single biggest reason most of these kids dont go to college. The parents insist the kids work to help pay for the kids car (pick-up) and auto insurance. Eventually, school takes a back seat to the job. By senior year most of these kids have been working and driving for 3+ years (driving age in our state is 15 y/o). Very few of these kids want to leave their jobs, take their savings and attend the local college (100% admission rate) or the local U (99% admission rate). Many of the parents are probably, secretly relieved. There is a high rate of divorce and remarriage, which makes paying for your kid to attend college almost impossible. It is the children of the professional class, who are most likely to attend college.</p>
<p>I find that the economic divergence is occurring at the flagship state universities as well. The Univ. of Washington, for example, no longer guarantees state community college graduates admission as transfer students. The average GPA and test scores are rising and the honors program is very popular and is ultra competitive, more so than most Ivy's. Those with more resources are, of course, better positioned to be prepared to compete. Further, even the non Ph.D. schools, such as Western Washington, are providing competitive honors programs and are becoming increasingly more selective. It is falling more and more on the often overcrowded community colleges to offer lower income first generation students a chance. (This is not necessarily a terrible thing, however, that is how I got my start.)</p>
<p>Here is my, later in the night, cynical view which may be interpreted as a rant, if you like...The wealthy have access to private schools with small classes and experienced college admission programs in place. Upper middle class students often have access to some of these private schools or superior suburban schools where college admission is also taken seriously. Towards the bottom of the food chain are the inner city and rural school children who frequently are in underfunded overcrowed classrooms, without the quality tutorial support found in the upper tiers. Many of these kids poor or merely at the low end of middle class are also ignored when it comes to Standardized test prep classes, AP classes, and the support system that comes with being a third generation college family.
The counselors in their schools are often in a 500+ to 1 ratio and are overwhelmed with making sure 300 of the kids are going to get enough credits to graduate. many of these counselors know little outside the community college, state college and state University system.</p>
<p>These students often work after school, babysitting or dropping chicken in the deep fat fryers and for some the neighborhood and home is not condusive to studying. In spite of this, once in a while, a kid learns to love reading and learning...they develop the discipline to walk away from the family television...they ask for help and find teachers who respond...and somehow without the advantage of having college recruitment within an hour of their lives they find out that there are different qualities of colleges and they know that they want to try for the best one they can get and they find someone to help them and their family through the admission process. </p>
<p>If this kid is accepted:
Cut to the kid, who we have all met on line or in life, who then complains that he is disadvantaged because too many kids in his grade at his private school have grandparents and parents who graduated Yale...and how unfair it is that some other kid with lower scores (and obviously less qualified) got in ahead of him just because he is a minority or poor.</p>
<p>Or if the lower income student is rejected: The smug tones of people of privilege who really thinks their test and AP scores prove superiority.</p>
<p>God bless the State Universities that look for the top 10% of the class and reach out to welcome with an affordable education. We all lose if entire segments of our society are denied the access to the best education available...simply because when they were starting out they couldn't afford it.</p>